I never saw myself as a director. It's certainly a second language but making movies for 40 years, you pick stuff up. However, this style of making movies, this documentary style, is easier for me because I gather a lot of material and with an editor, write it on screen. You try to write based on what you shot.

A book of poems doesn't just come out by chance, an editor has to select it, a publisher has to distribute it or you will never see it.

An editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and then prints the chaff.

All writers should strive to deliver something fresh-something editors or readers won't know they want until they see it.

I'm totally against the idea of a celebrity editor.

Very few editors worry about heresy - their goals are much too commercial, thank goodness.

It is extremely unfortunate that an editor's own life and practice should be notoriously at variance with his written principles.

A good novel editor is invisible.

When the war was over and the guys were back to shaving every day, the editor thought the Beetle Bailey strips were hurting their disciplinary efforts to get the guys back to routine.

A perfect movie is a different thing, but a funny movie is easy. I was really happy that I got everyone that I got. Everybody got to play to their strengths and was paired up in the right scenarios. It was very fortunate. It was exciting, the whole process. It makes more difficulty in editing 'cause there's more footage, but the guy I had handle it was a documentarian editor for a long time, so it was very useful.